⟡ SWANK Criminal Record Filing ⟡
“The Police Got the Email. We Got the Number.”
Filed: 2 June 2025
Reference: SWANK/MET/ROC10979
📎 Download PDF – 2025-06-02_SWANK_PoliceReport_KirstyHornal_CoerciveThreat_DisabilityDiscrimination_ROC10979.pdf
I. What Constitutes a Threat?
On 31 May 2025, Ms Kirsty Hornal — Senior Practitioner at Westminster Children’s Services — emailed the Director of SWANK London Ltd. to declare her intention to “liaise with legal teams” and consider “whether this needs to be taken to court.”
There was:
No meeting
No statutory trigger
No updated risk assessment
And no lawful cause to make such a declaration
What there was — unmistakably — was a coercive safeguarding threat
delivered in writing, in the absence of lawful process, in breach of a written-only communication adjustment, and timed to coincide with active litigation.
So we did what one does with threats that violate the law:
We filed a police report.
II. Report Details: ROC10979-25-0101-IR
On 2 June 2025 at 14:01, SWANK submitted a formal online crime report to the Metropolitan Police, recorded under reference: ROC10979-25-0101-IR.
The report documents:
The full contents of the coercive email
The retaliatory timing in context of live civil litigation
The impact on a disabled complainant with PTSD, muscle tension dysphonia, and asthma
The clear violation of the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act 1998
This was not merely tone-deaf.
It was criminally aggressive masquerading as professional correspondence.
III. Disability, Retaliation, and Risk by Email
The report also includes detailed health context:
PTSD triggered by prior safeguarding abuse
Medically documented written-only communication requirement
Recurrent retaliation from social workers following formal complaints
Increased respiratory and psychological harm from surprise threats
The email was not “support.”
It was an escalation tactic sent from a taxpayer-funded keyboard.
IV. SWANK’s Position
Safeguarding, in its original meaning, was meant to protect the vulnerable.
Now it is routinely wielded to discredit them.
We reject that transformation.
Ms Hornal's behaviour was neither accidental nor misinterpreted. It was part of an institutional script — one that moves from refusal, to threat, to silence.
That script now has a crime reference number.
We will not be gaslit. We will be heard in record.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡
Every entry is timestamped.
Every sentence is jurisdictional.
Every structure is protected.
To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach.
We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence.
This is not a blog.
This is a legal-aesthetic instrument.
Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation.
Because evidence deserves elegance.
And retaliation deserves an archive.
© 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved.
Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.